GEORGE TOWN: Lawyers today questioned the explanation from Bukit Aman CID chief Huzir Mohamed that recording the police in the midst of a raid and airing it to the public was illegal, asking if the same could be said of news coverage on TV.
The issue was highlighted following the arrest of a former Universiti Malaya student leader who filmed an attempted raid at the home of a current student body leader and broadcast it on Facebook Live recently.
Huzir had said it was illegal to record any police operation, especially one that was in the midst of an investigation. He said police investigations were confidential in nature and any exposure would affect its outcome.
Lawyer Muhammad Rafique Rashid Ali dismissed the logic behind the argument, saying that would make TV stations and online news portals showing police raids and other operations just as guilty of the same crime.
“Likewise, crime scene television shows such as TV3’s ‘999’ would also fall under the same law,” he said.
“Recording during raids is one of the ways to ensure police are carrying out their duties transparently and in accordance with the law. It also ensures that the police do not do as they like, besides ensuring they are truthful when giving evidence in court.
“If they are carrying out an investigation and raid transparently and in accordance with the law, then what is there to be afraid of,” he asked.
Rafique said recordings are important as it could be used as evidence as a defence in court later on.
“Police cannot strike fear among the public. When the CID chief speaks along these lines, it might encourage other police officers to also use it as a carte blanche when dealing with similar situations,” he said.
Lawyer SN Nair also raised further doubts on Huzir’s remarks, asking which provisions under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) banned the filming of police.
Huzir had initially said by recording and airing a police investigation, the former student leader had gone against Section 233 of the CMA.
“May I kindly ask the CID chief to indicate to us ignorant lawyers as to which specific provisions in Section 233 of the CMA indicates that the transmission of the recording of the police officer, was either ‘obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent’?
“From the video clip in itself, on the contrary, and on the face of it, it is the police officer who appears ‘menacing’, by his words, tone and physical gestures made towards the person filming the video,” Nair said.
DAP’s Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh also weighed in on the issue saying Huzir has no right to declare video recordings illegal, as it was up to the courts to decide.
He asked Huzir if the body cameras being mooted for all cops by the inspector-general of police could then be considered illegal as well.
Lawyer K Simon Murali said while the recordings are not illegal, not complying with an order by the police can amount to obstruction. He said while it was questionable whether police officers can issue such instructions, it is in the public’s interest to have a video taken to counter claims of power abuse.
Last Saturday, former UM Association of New Youth (Umany) leader Wong Yan Ke, 24, was arrested over “alleged obstruction of the duties of a public servant” after he recorded the police’s attempt to search current Umany president Robin Yap’s house and broadcast it live on Facebook. - FMT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.